Morals have been neglected during Taiwan's democratization because the government and society have ignored the issue of historical justice.
The Chen Wen-chen Incident (
At that time, the KMT government claimed that Chen had committed suicide, however, an autopsy performed by an American forensics expert disputed this conclusion.
But history is not without irony. A few days ago, Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Lien Chan (連戰) and People First Party (PFP) Chairman James Soong (宋楚瑜) said at an international press conference that the autopsy on Chen was conducted by foreign experts, adding that foreign professionals helped clarify suspicions and showed good faith to the nation. Are these really the facts?
Lies are once again being spread by Lien and Soong, who at the time of Chen's death were high-ranking officials. They make us feel ashamed.
Chen had returned to Taiwan during the Martial Law era. An outstanding Taiwanese, he returned to visit his wife and son after signing a three-year contract to teach at Carnegie Mellon University in Pennsylvania. With his aspirations and a love for Taiwan, Chen had no reason to kill himself. His corpse was found at his old university.
After an autopsy by domestic coroners, an investigation by Taipei District prosecutors and a review by the Control Yuan, the official explanation was: "There is no evidence of murder. Accidental death or suicide are probable."
The distressed family of Chen, particularly his wife, Chen Su-jen (
The murder of Chen took place within two years of the tragedy in which former DPP chairman Lin I-hsiung's (林義雄) family was killed.
Lin's six-year-old twin daughters were brutally murdered along with their grandmother on Feb. 28, 1980. His eldest daughter, then nine-years old, was severely injured in the attack but survived.
No arrests have been made in the case. Lin and many Taiwanese believe the attack was politically motivated.
These cases darkened Taiwan's political outlook. Despite being stunned and startled, many Tai-wanese, both inside and outside the country, sought to redress the these wrongs.
Carnegie Mellon president Richard Cyert sent Morris DeGroot of the department of statistics and forensics expert
Dr. Cyril Wecht to Taipei to carry out an autopsy on Chen. After they dissected Chen's frozen body, they concluded: "Chen Wen-chen was a victim of murder. Unconscious, he was pushed down to his death from a fire ladder."
Soong, then director of the Government Information Office, obstructed redress in every possible way. Although he knew that the two Americans came to conduct an autopsy, Soong insisted that Associated Press reporter Tina Chou (周清月) replace the word "autopsy" in her stories with the phrase "inspection of Chen's body." Soong later cancelled Chou's reporter's license and deported her.
The ghost of authoritarianism continues to haunt the nation. On International Human Rights Day last December the PFP hindered Chou from visiting Taiwan and speaking at a conference held by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy. Soong and the PFP's actions are to be condemned.
To restore the truth, Chen's violent death must be explained. Lien and Soong's allegation that the autopsy was conducted by domestic and foreign experts is a sheer lie. Instead of reflecting on political persecution by the KMT and apologizing for having interfered with the autopsy, Lien and Soong cited the Chen Wen-chen Incident as a pretext for the use of foreign forensics experts, hoping to further their demands for an independent investigation of the March 19 shooting of President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁). Nothing could be more preposterous.
If Lien and Soong still have any conscience left, they should come to the Chen Wen-chen Memorial Foundation to apologize in person within 48 hours.
While in power, the KMT had prevented the foundation from registering under this name.
Yet history manifests itself. Without any awareness of history, the persecutors during the age of totalitarianism brazenly lie in public. In light of their past behavior, they lied deliberately in order to try to win the presidency. But their lies cannot whitewash the history of oppression of human rights.
President William Lai (賴清德) attended a dinner held by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) when representatives from the group visited Taiwan in October. In a speech at the event, Lai highlighted similarities in the geopolitical challenges faced by Israel and Taiwan, saying that the two countries “stand on the front line against authoritarianism.” Lai noted how Taiwan had “immediately condemned” the Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel by Hamas and had provided humanitarian aid. Lai was heavily criticized from some quarters for standing with AIPAC and Israel. On Nov. 4, the Taipei Times published an opinion article (“Speak out on the
Eighty-seven percent of Taiwan’s energy supply this year came from burning fossil fuels, with more than 47 percent of that from gas-fired power generation. The figures attracted international attention since they were in October published in a Reuters report, which highlighted the fragility and structural challenges of Taiwan’s energy sector, accumulated through long-standing policy choices. The nation’s overreliance on natural gas is proving unstable and inadequate. The rising use of natural gas does not project an image of a Taiwan committed to a green energy transition; rather, it seems that Taiwan is attempting to patch up structural gaps in lieu of
News about expanding security cooperation between Israel and Taiwan, including the visits of Deputy Minister of National Defense Po Horng-huei (柏鴻輝) in September and Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Francois Wu (吳志中) this month, as well as growing ties in areas such as missile defense and cybersecurity, should not be viewed as isolated events. The emphasis on missile defense, including Taiwan’s newly introduced T-Dome project, is simply the most visible sign of a deeper trend that has been taking shape quietly over the past two to three years. Taipei is seeking to expand security and defense cooperation with Israel, something officials
“Can you tell me where the time and motivation will come from to get students to improve their English proficiency in four years of university?” The teacher’s question — not accusatory, just slightly exasperated — was directed at the panelists at the end of a recent conference on English language learning at Taiwanese universities. Perhaps thankfully for the professors on stage, her question was too big for the five minutes remaining. However, it hung over the venue like an ominous cloud on an otherwise sunny-skies day of research into English as a medium of instruction and the government’s Bilingual Nation 2030
RSS